Shoots for the fences, and comes up a bit short. Still, I'd much rather watch Gilliam fail than most directors succeed. And, of course, I'd watch anything with Monica Bellucci in it.
I think, however, I would have preferred the version that Gilliam wanted with Samantha Morton and Matt Damon wearing a big fake nose.
Followed this one up the next night, coincidentally, with a PBS documentary about Kinsey. Despite the fact that Neeson is a much more handsome man than the real doc, it's a compelling story. Especially compelling as a biopic that sells the idea that personal obsession can still lead to great science.
Of course when we see an obsessed physicist, or an obsessed mathematician, we just want to make plush dolls out of them, but when one's obsession is sex--albeit in an academic (as well as personal, so the movie suggests) fashion, our culture tends to react in quite a different way.
But the research had to be done. It's hard for us, post-sexual revolution people to imagine, but the repression about sex was tremendous. To get an idea of just how bad it was. Not only where there very few facts to be had, but the facts that were available were severely flawed. Abstinence-only education was the norm, and the painful scene of the Kinsey's on their wedding night was the norm, I'd suggest.
Of course, though, I'm one of those people who believes that good factual information is the key to being an adult and living an adult life. If you repress sex--especially by means of repressing information-- you end up with a lot of ignorant pregnant teenagers. You end up with a higher rate of abortion. You end up with a lot worse. Like this story reported today about a rape victim who could find no one to fill her prescription for emergency contraception.
Most telling, of course, is that denial of sexual information is almost unilaterally aimed at girls, and repression of sexual information always comes hand-in-hand with repression of women (take a look at fundamentalist muslim populations, or fundamentalist christian populations that put the burden of sexuality on the woman by saying that if she doesn't cover herself, then the men will be inflamed by her callous action). Boys are a lot more simple, and if a boy is ignorant he can't get himself pregnant, taking away his choice in the matter of whether or not he wants to be a parent. Some people would call that a good thing--a little fear, repression, guilt and reliance on god's will--I call it the dark ages. But, at least the opponents to nearly everything are consistent: they would ban all science, including sex research.
My sister and brother-in-law once went to a church where the preacher, leading a value-driven sermon, said "There are four problems in the world today: 1. Secular Humanism, 2. Darwinism, 3. Homosexuality and 4. Science." They got the hell out of there as fast as the politely could, but it was my 9 year old nephew who summed it up nicely when he was told why they wouldn't be going back to that particular church. "Science?" he said. "They don't believe in science? Without science we'd all be living in elephant-hide tents!"
Laconic has always been a good word for Jarmusch. He doesn't force stories, but lets them gradually unfold. He doesn't spoon feed you characters, he just let's them be who they are and hopes his audience is smart enough to suss them out.
That makes a perfect team with Murray, whose comedy has elegantly refined itself into blinky-eyed stares. At the state he's going, he'll be approaching a perfect state of mimehood soon, where his films will consist of one impossibly long close-up of Murray staring at the audience.
I liked the Odyssean aspect of his quest, and the repeating circular themes (including his street, which he tells to the cabbie near the end "Circle Drive, please." The basketball hoops, the use of pink to represent the feminine.
Despite the fact that I've always been trained as a writer to make a character arc and resolve it neatly at the end, I really like movies that challenge that convention. The shot of Murray at the end, standing in front of the obvious-but-still-enjoyable crossroads was quite nice.
But I have to say my favorite character was Winston. He was fantastic, iconic, and so uncliched and original that you felt like he would be a guy you'd like to have as a neighbor. And then, also, a guy who you'd absolutely hate to have as a neighbor.
I'm with John Stewart, who told George Clooney that it was no fair that he was such a handsome devil, and talented to boot. It's like they were handing out the double prize when he rolled off the assembly line. Or, maybe that's unfair to him--he was born pretty, but he made himself a good filmmaker. He deserves the credit for making smart choices.
For instance, not casting himself as the lead. A good sign to be sure of his talent being much larger than his ego. Using black and white to nice extent. And most of all, speaking to us by presenting a story that is analogous to our times, without a big hit-on-the-head message. I'm sure some people, such as those who outrageously support McCarthyism, will look at this film as propaganda, but to my eyes it was not about the politics of the individual as much as the individuals rights to have unpopular politics.
Very smart ploy to have Joe McCarthy play himself for two distinct reasons: 1. Murrow always let the man's words speak for himself, and 2. McCarthy was a creature who came to politics before media savvy were absolute requirements for politicians. He doesn't play well. He's unkempt, sweaty, hair falling out of place--he looks greasy, ungroomed, and even a bit scary with a scar on his brow. Today he would be better appointed, better hair hardener, more deliberate about his plans, which he would not reveal so decisively. He would hide his true meaning behind carefully rehearsed buzz words, and speak in delicate code which only conservative churches around the nation hold the decoder rings to. Letting the audience, used to tightly packaged media-savvy politicians, see this monomaniacal madman in his own words is a perfect reveal of the conservative id. A direct line to the man whose Shakespearean-scale obsession eventually was his undoing.
Of course, this same man is still in power today in many forms--as he was in power before McCarthy. He's the fundamentalist who works his personal demons out in public. He's the conservative who draws a black and white line in the sand, but turns his back to the fact that on the other side of the line is the ocean. When it comes to people who would confront him with the truth, he'd just as soon they drown as deal with the topic directly. He (who is often these days a she as well, so much for the feminist ideal that women in power would bring us a kinder matriarchal society) diverts attention with character assassination and straw man arguments so that facts go unchallenged.
Why? Because simple ideas are easier to express on television. Reality is notoriously complex. Don't you worry your little heads about a deficit, Americans--we've got awful smart people working on it. Don't worry about people being held without trial--they're bad people! You can trust us. Don't worry about minor inconveniences like knowing the facts, just trust that 'Merica is safer without those bad, bad, evil people. Did I mention 9/11? Uh-oh, looks like we got us a credible threat. Raise the terror alert level!
Clooney takes stabs at a host of issues, all of which are center stage today. Gay Marriage, with hilarious clips of Liberace, whom Murrow asks if he has plans to marry. Liberace responds by saying that Princess Ann is looking for a husband, too. He takes on racism subtly, in indirect ways--a woman accused by McCarthy quivering in her chair, nearly powerless before the abrasive white Senators. A black singer, singing with Rosemary Clooney's band, only sequestered behind glass from the rest of the cast.
He also takes a great swipe at the fallacy of "equal times, opposite views", which is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever foisted on the viewing public. Having debate is fine, but the idea that every side has an equal and opposite viewpoint worthy of discussion is about as logical as saying that all ideas are equally valid, which when you talk to certain people you realize that it's just not true. Of course, no news organization in their right mind would host an anti-nazi / pro-nazi debate, or a earth-is-flat / earth-is-round debate. The only reason they allow this charade to continue is to lose this illusion of fairness and fear of attack from right-wing zealots. Fuck fairness--I doubt we're going to see any hard hitting evidence on Disney owned NBC about how copyright law is depriving Americans of culture. I doubt we'll see on GE owned CBS (Do they still own it? I could be wrong) about the military industrial complex (don't think there is one? Can you name a decade since WWII where there hasn't been a war? Can you name any actual attack in the 20th century on American Soil post WWII?). Point is, corporate owners dumb down our coverage of issues that they should be covering so the idea of presenting balance is laughable. Do they do it directly? I don't know--it could be like the scene in the movie where all the reporters in the room are being asked if they have any communist associations in their background. McCarthy didn't ask them directly, did he? But the implication was there all the same.
Some people want absolutes, and they think it's fine if perfectly normal people are scared of them. But then, I'm the sort of person that gets a bit annoyed when Costco looks at my receipt, thinking that I'm potentially a criminal just because I shopped at their store. Or, maybe it's like that sign that was put up on a college campus by a feminist group that says "These men are potential rapists", and it listed every man in the university. Granted, that was more performance art than anything, but the idea that any of us should live in terror not because of what we are, but because of what somebody might MAYBE think that we could be is worse than most actual terrorism. As soon as Americans are afraid to speak their minds, then America has been handed over to the fundamentalists. Oh wait--that's right, it already has been.
"Are you now, or have you ever been an atheist against the founding fathers wishes?"
"Senator Santorum, I object to the..."
"I repeat, sir, are you now, or have you ever been an atheist, or a homosexual?"
"Really Senator, I don't see what..."
"Let the record show that the defendant is refusing to answer the question, and therefore must be either a homosexual atheist, or in league with homosexual atheists. Send him to gender counseling and bible school."
A common problem might be that you are chaste and good and a virgin, but you're finding it hard to wait until your honeymoon because of your attraction to your potential mate. Some might suggest prayer to stay the course, but I would simply suggest an enjoyable triple feature:
1. We Don't Live Here Anymore.
2. Interiors
3. Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?
One and three will take care of the relationship parts, but number two is just for the absolute misery. Enjoy!